Allahabad High Court
IRFAN AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC, holding that a settlement between the parties, even for non‑compoundable offences, warrants termination of the case.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 and 504 IPC arising from a dispute in Ghaziabad. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by a compromise report submitted to the court. Both sides, through their counsel, agreed that the compromise should be respected and that continuation of the criminal trial would serve no purpose. The court examined Supreme Court precedents—Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madhavrao Scindia v. Angre, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka—highlighting that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is settled and public interest is not jeopardised. Relying on these authorities, the bench held that the continuation of the proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the entire proceeding was quashed with respect to the applicants. The application was therefore allowed, and the respondents were advised that any further grievance could be raised through a recall application.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether the settlement of a civil dispute between the offender and victim justifies termination of the criminal case without harming public interest.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 452, 504
Subjects
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- Section 528 CrPC
- settlement
- public interest
- IPC
- CrPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34776 of 2026
Irfan And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Ojha, Manju Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This matter is being taken up out of turn from the category of cases
which have been mentioned in the morning on account of urgency. Heard
learned counsel for parties.
2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to quash charge
sheet dated 7.6.2021, cognizance order dated 18.01.2022 along with entire
proceeding of Case no. 363 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime no. 390 of
2021 under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 IPC, PS- Masuri, District-
Ghaziabad.
3. In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court, compromise
verification report has already been received from learned concerned
court and the same is appended to order sheet wherein it is mentioned that
compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.
4. Learned counsels for respondents showed no objection to aforesaid
contention of learned counsel for applicants.
5. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably
settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and
admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been submitted that
there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice
that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.
6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58
of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal
NA528 No. 34776 of 2026
2
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender
and the victim has been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal
proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands
that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.
7. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has
also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial,
family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special
feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine
settlement of disputes between the parties.
8. In case of H.N.Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka [2025 INSC 37],
Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that if the offence is non-
compoundable which is having no serious impact on society then there
would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in light of
the compromise entered into between the parties.
9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire
proceeding of Case no. 363 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime no. 390 of
2021 under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 IPC, PS- Masuri, District-
Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
11. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he/she has been duped or
betrayed, then in that event, he/she may file recall application explaining
the reasons for filing the said application.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 28, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…